Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas Piketty Academic year...

37
Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas Piketty Academic year 2013-2014 Lecture 3: The dynamics of capital/income ratios: β= s/g (Tuesday December 10 th 2013) (check on line for updated versions)

description

Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas Piketty Academic year 2013-2014 . Lecture 3: The dynamics of capital/income ratios: β=s/g (Tuesday December 10 th 2013) (check on line for updated versions). Summing up: what have we learned ?. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas Piketty Academic year...

Page 1: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014

  Economics of Inequality(Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics)

Thomas PikettyAcademic year 2013-2014 

Lecture 3: The dynamics of capital/income ratios: β=s/g

   (Tuesday December 10th 2013)(check on line for updated versions)

Page 2: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014

Summing up: what have we learned?• National wealth-income ratios βn=Wn/Y followed a large U-

shaped curve in Europe: 600-700% in 18c-19c until 1910, down to 200-300% around 1950, back to 500-600% in 2010

• U-shaped curve much less marked in the US• Most of the long run changes in βn are due to changes in the 

private wealth-income ratios β=W/Y • But changes in public wealth-income ratios βg=Wg/Y (>0 or 

<0) also played an important role (e.g. amplified the β decline between 1910 and 1950) 

• Changes in net foreign assets NFA (>0 or <0) also played an important role (e.g. account for a large part of the β decline between 1910 and 1950)

Page 3: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 4: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 5: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014

The rise of wealth-income ratios in rich countries 1970-2010

• Over 1970-2010 period, the analysis can be extented to top 8 developed economies: US, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Canada, Australia

• Around 1970, β≈200-350% in all rich countries• Around 2010, β≈400-700% in all rich countries• Asset price bubbles (real estate and/or stock market) are 

important in the short-run and medium-run• But the long-run evolution over 1970-2010 is more than a 

bubble: it happens in every rich country, and it is consistent with the basic theoretical model β=s/g

Page 6: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 7: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014

• The rise of β would be even larger is we were to divide private wealth W by disposable household income Yh rather than by national income Y

• Yh used to be ≈90% of Y until early 20c (=very low taxes and govt spendings); it is now ≈70-80% of Y (=rise of in-kind transfers in education and healh)

• βh=W/Yh is now as large as 800-900% in some countries (Italy, Japan, France…)

• But in order to make either cross-country or time-series comparisons, it is better to use national income Y as a denominator (=more comprehensive and comparable income concept)

Page 8: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 9: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014

• 1970-2010: rise of private wealth-income ratio β, decline in public wealth-inccome ratio βg

• But the rise in β was much bigger than the decline in βg, so that national wealth-income ratio βn=β+βg rose substantially

• Exemple: Italy. β rose from 240% to 680%, βg declined from 20% to -70%, so that βn rose from 260% to 610%. I.e. at most 1/4 of total increase in β can be attributed to a transfer from public to private wealth (privatisation and public debt).   

Page 10: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 11: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014

• In most countries, NFA ≈ 0, so rise in national wealth-income ratio ≈ rise in domestic capital-output ratio; in Japan and Germany, a non-trivial part of the rise in βn was invested abroad (≈ 1/4)

Page 12: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 13: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014

• Main explanation for rise in wealth-income ratio: growth slowdown and β = s/g  

         (Harrod-Domar-Solow steady-state formula)

• One-good capital accumulation model: Wt+1 = Wt + stYt

      →  dividing both sides by Yt+1, we get: βt+1 = βt (1+gwt)/(1+gt)With 1+gwt = 1+st/βt = saving-induced wealth growth rate1+gt = Yt+1/Yt = total income growth rate (productivity+population)• If saving rate st→ s and growth rate gt → g, then:                                   βt → β = s/g• E.g. if s=10% & g=2%, then β = 500%: this is the only wealth-income ratio 

such that with s=10%, wealth rises at 2% per year, i.e. at the same pace as income

• If s=10% and growth declines from g=3% to g=1,5%, then the steady-state wealth-income ratio goes from about 300% to 600%

→ the large variations in growth rates and saving rates (g and s are determined by different factors and generally do not move together) explain the large variations in β over time and across countries

Page 14: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 15: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 16: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 17: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 18: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014

• Two-good capital accumulation model: one capital good, one consumption good

• Define 1+qt = real rate of capital gain (or capital loss)     = excess of asset price inflation over consumer price inflation• Then βt+1 = βt (1+gwt)(1+qt)/(1+gt)With 1+gwt = 1+st/βt = saving-induced wealth growth rate1+qt = capital-gains-induced wealth growth rate (=residual term)

→ Main finding: relative price effects (capital gains and losses) are key in the short and medium run and at local level, but volume effects (saving and investment) dominate in the long run and at the national or continental level 

See the detailed decomposition results for wealth accumulation into volume and relative price effects in Piketty-Zucman, “Capital is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries 1700-2010 “, 2013, slides, data appendix 

 (see also Gyourko et al, « Superstar cities », AEJ 2013)

Page 19: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 20: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 21: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 22: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014

• Harrod-Domar-Solow formula β = s/g is a pure accounting formula and is valid with any saving motive and utility function 

 • Wealth increase in the utility function: Max U(ct,Δwt=wt+1-wt)→ if U(c,Δ)=c1-s Δs, then fixed saving rate st=s,  βt→ β = s/g           (i.e. Max U(ct,Δwt) under ct+Δwt≤yt  → Δwt = s yt ) • Total wealth or bequest in the utility function: Max U(ct,wt+1)→ if U(c,w)=c1-s ws, then wt+1=s(wt + yt), βt → β = s/(g+1-s) = s’/g  (with s’=s(1+β)-β = corresponding saving rate out of income)

• Pure OLG lifecycle model: saving rate s determined by demographic structure (more time in retirement → higher s), then  βt→ β = s/g

• Dynastic utility:      Max Σ U(ct)/(1+δ)t , with U(c)=c1-1/ξ/(1-1/ξ) → unique long rate rate of return rt → r = δ +ξg > g → long run saving rate st→ s = αg/r, βt → β = α/r = s/g 

            (on these models, see next lecture and PZ 2013 section 3)

Page 23: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014

Gross vs net foreign assets:           financial globalization in action

• Net foreign asset positions are smaller today than what they were in 1900-1910 

• But they are rising fast in Germany, Japan and oil countries• And gross foreign assets and liabilities are a lot larger than they have

ever been, especially in small countries: about 30-40% of total financial assets and liabilities in European countries (even more in smaller countries)

• This potentially creates substantial financial fragility (especially if link between private risk and sovereign risk)

• This destabilizing force is probably even more important than the rise of top income shares (=important in the US, but not so much in Europe; see lecture 5 & PS, « Top incomes and the Great Recession », IMF Review 2013 )

Page 24: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 25: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 26: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 27: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 28: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 29: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 30: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 31: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 32: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 33: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 34: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014

Market vs book value of corporations• So far we used a market-value definition of national wealth Wn : 

corporations valued at stock market prices• Book value of corporations = assets – debt• Tobin’s Q ratio = (market value)/(book value) (>1 or <1)• Residual corporate wealth Wc = book value – market value

• Book-value national wealth Wb = Wn + Wc 

• In principe, Q ≈ 1 (otherwise, investment should adjust), so that Wc ≈ 0 and Wb ≈ Wn 

• But Q can be systematically >1 if immaterial investment not well accounted in book assets 

• But Q can be systemativally <1 if shareholders have imperfect control of the firm (stakeholder model): this can explain why Q lower in Germany than in US-UK, and the general rise of Q since 1970s-80s

• From an efficiency viewpoint, unclear which model is best

Page 35: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014
Page 36: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014

Summing up

• Wealth-income ratios β and βn have no reason to be stable over time and across countries

• If global growth slowdown in the future (g≈1,5%) and saving rates remain high (s≈10-12%), then the global β might rise towards 700% (or more… or less…)

• What are the consequences for the share α of capital income in national income? See next lecture  

Page 37: Economics of Inequality (Master PPD & APE, Paris School of Economics) Thomas  Piketty Academic year 2013-2014